I believe that thread contains some of the hardest core tard eva. Are you sure you can cope?

Quote

Extinction occurs as recessive deleterious mutations accumulate in any species with obligatory sexual reproduction until there are so many of them the genome is no longer robust

How many generations since the ark AFDave, erk, DS?

Quote

Purebred dogs are prone to a litany of genetic disorders that would quickly make the breeds become extinct in the wild. The sudden appearance is what begs for a credible explanation. This is summed up in the commonly heard phrase “The question isn’t about survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest.”

Some attempt to prove life arose by accident in the primitive seas by a chemical process. But chemical processes cannot account for the mechanical marvels of life. What is the chemical formula for an eye, or an ear, or a hand? Each of these had to be formed in working order and all at once, or they would never have formed at all. The unbeliever's problem is not survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest.

One of the most obvious reasons to reject evolutionism as an explanation of life is the fact that, had they not been formed fully functional, the millions of species of life on earth could never have formed. The circulatory system, for example, requires a pump, blood, arteries, veins, etc. Each component is extremely complex; each is precisely tailored for the role it is to play in concert with every other part. It cannot be accounted for as the result of an incredible sequence of events leading to its formation.

Recognizing the absurdity of thinking that blind chance could have formed what we see here, some express faith in an unknown and unproven power in matter itself to form life. When conditions are right, they argue, life will just naturally form. This is more blind faith than scientific deduction.

EDIT: THe other tract names are classics!Job115 -- Why Bad Things Happen to Good PeopleJob116 -- Homosexuality -- Are Same Sex Relationships a Christian Option?Job117 -- The Case Against Instrumental Music in WorshipJob118 -- Christian Unity -- A Practical Plan for Peace in Our Divided Religious WorldJob119 -- How to Identify the New Testament ChurchJob120 -- Some Things You May Have Wondered about Churches of ChristJob121 -- Why Not Be Just a Christian?Job122 -- Leadership in the Local CongregationJob123 -- Countdown to Armageddon?????Job124 -- Confirming the MessageJob125 -- A New CovenantJob126 -- CHRIST'S LAW, the Principle of LoveJob127 -- THINK ABOUT IT -- Who Provides for You?http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tracts/

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Where do you find this shit, Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit? It's good shit.

Quote

The Wind once challenged the Sun to a contest. Below them was a man wending his way down a road. Each would attempt to make the man remove his coat. The Wind blew and blew, [*Fart*] but the man merely drew his coat tighter about him.

Then the sun said, "Wasn't me." And the wind said, "Your paper said very clearly that it was you." And the sun said, "You're misrepresenting my paper." And the wind said, "No, you're misrepresenting your own paper! If you would read your own paper, you would see how clearly you are misrepresenting what your paper says!" And the sun said, "How can I write my own paper without reading it?" Should I be smoking this stuff on the job?

Quote

But chemical processes cannot account for the mechanical marvels of life.

From MSNBCWhen they broke the bone into pieces for transport, they were amazed to find that some of the dinosaur's soft tissues appeared to be preserved within. Previously, paleontologists had thought all the tissues of a fossil turned to minerals over the course of millions of years.

Holy Dino Crap! That is as bad as the average creationist!

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

But it will not do to have Darwin discard teleology and then to claim teleological processes as Darwinian.

So now everything that came about with even the slightest degree of "teleology" is considered ID?

Even with this, directed enzyme evolution isn't that "telic." Rational de novo design would be "telic." Just picking the best candidates generation after generation isn't very "telic."

Let's say the function of a cytochrome P450 is to oxidize alkanes to alcohols, but you want to do it in an organic solvent and not water. Well, so you put it through a round of random mutation and then look in the "pile" to see if any have some incremental improvement. Do error prone PCR for another round of reproduction with random mutation, then check to see if there are any enzymes with an incremental improvement. Repeat.

Now, you may never get what you want in a reasonable time frame. That's the "limit of Darwinian processes" in this case.

But Dembski wants to claim that this is really ID, because there is some minuscule degree of "teleology" at work. But is there really that much design involved in just picking the best candidates and then randomly mutating them, hoping to get lucky in the next generation?

Oh my god. DaveScot is blaming the "global warming whackos" for the price of corn. http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-top....warmingOf course, most "global warming whackos" think ethanol from corn is a BAD idea because under normal circumstances it takes as much or more energy to produce the ethanol than you would get out of it.

Yeah, it's all the whackos' fault. Never mind that George W. Bush talked all about the need for ethanol this and ethanol that in a SOTU address and that corn prices shot through the roof right after that. Dubya knows that ethanol is a good thing for big business. The whackos don't like it so much. The real whackos realize that ethanol from corn ain't that "green."

Electric cars run from solar cells or plug in hybrids and electric grids run from wind, solar, and wave power. Those are the answers, not ethanol. I dunno, maybe I'm just too whacko to see the light.

When assesing fitness, we only consider traits that help or hinder net reproduction. (A true statement.) Those organisms with these traits (the beneficial ones) will have higher differential reproduction than those without them. (Another true statement.) Therefore, the traits which cause differential reproduction will cause differential reproduction, which then explains why when we see differential reproduction these traits were the cause. (A true statement due to its logical form. So a tautology.)

Some facts are so well ingrained, such as that the Earth moves, that people forget that they are empirical discoveries.

Modify the claim slightly, There exist heritable traits that lead to differential reproduction. This can conceivably be a true statement or a false statement. That means it is not a tautology, but one that is open to empirical investigation. And it leads to falsifiable hypotheses; e.g. a bacteria with a specific type of efflux pump can be predicted to have higher reproductive potential than other bacteria when found in an environment rich in antibiotics, and will consequently tend to increase its proportion of the bacterial population.

We call this tendency of a population to change due to heritable traits, "Natural Selection".

you might argue that a banana was designed for human consumption, but then again it’s also eaten by many other animals, many of which don’t have hands. Perhaps the designer favours humans though. However, we should also note that the current banana is a mutant. I think I’ve read that the original bananas had to be cooked.

Also, what about fruits like the durian then? Why would a designer design a heavy fruit that grows on tall trees, falls with the possibility of hurting people, and covered with a thick spiky shell?

Is such a fruit designed for human consumption?

Cocoanuts were designed to fall on your head. You're supposed to tithe 10% of your poppies, you twit. Give them to Dembski. He's the man behind the curtain.*Flies off in a blast of black smoke*

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Barna’s results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise “questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families.” The data challenge “the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage.”

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: “In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. …Just being born again is not a rabbit’s foot.”

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been “saved.”

So, if you want to strike a blow for true family values, lose your faith in God.

P.S. Barna is a religious opinion poller. He's been reporting virtually the same facts for the last several years, but the point about us virtuous atheists having the lowest divorce rates is new.

Barna’s results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise “questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families.” The data challenge “the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage.”

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: “In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. …Just being born again is not a rabbit’s foot.”

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been “saved.”

So, if you want to strike a blow for true family values, lose your faith in God.

P.S. Barna is a religious opinion poller. He's been reporting virtually the same facts for the last several years, but the point about us virtuous atheists having the lowest divorce rates is new.

Well, well, well.

Quote

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been “saved.”

There you have it. The entire Conservative Fundy Redneck Born Again Arseholyness is due to them realizing they're fucking the wrong person and only when they 'find themselves' <snicker> and want to lurve god (in the first person singular) do they turn from being uptight squares to, wait for it...... frigid mindless godbots with that 1000 yard rapture stare. God help them.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Gpuccio wrote a very long essay based on a faulty premise. The environment is not random. It is highly ordered. The Sun rises in the east and sets in the west in a regular cycle, the planets trace orbits against the fixed stars, water flows downhill, atoms spontaneously arrange themselves into non-random configurations. The entire history of science is a study of regularities in nature.

But the important thing to notice here is that virtually all of the good arguments against design come from outside science, they are all basically philosophical, or even religious, objections. If it were not for these problems, I don’t believe anyone could possibly look at mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or especially at biology, without seeing design.

How does Sewell look at mathematics and see design? Did he find a secret message embedded in pi?

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

13 April 2007 [NOTICE THE DATE, SUPERSTITIOUS PEOPLE!]The Pope Circling Around IDWilliam DembskiIt will be interesting to see where this debate is in the Roman Catholic Church by the time we get to Darwin’s bicentennial in 2009.

Yes, it will be.

It will be interesting what you have to say for yourself then too, Bill. It will be interesting to see if UD is still around. It will be interesting to see what you cough up in nine years, when according to your prediction evolution will be "dead."

But what I think is really interesting is that you think you can predict jack when weatherpeople "can't predict the weather three days out." Is ID climate, then? Interesting, because the weather outside is frightful (and our fire is so delightful...)

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Granville Sewell asks Is ID really rooted in science? Of course he doesn't actually provide any evidence for it, and most of the post is the claim that 'There are, in fact, some fairly persuasive reasons to believe that the development of life was due to natural causes, but when we honestly analyze them, they all reduce to the argument “this doesn’t look like the way a designer would have done things.”' although he doesn't provide any evidence for that either.

Edit: If someone starts to read that post undecided on the answer to that question I really hope they don't see the second reply

Freedom of speech is theoretically protected under the U.S. Constitution.

But even some of today's most courageous alternative doctors dare not speak publicly about the lifesaving new medicines they've discovered. These are not the familiar 'natural remedies' you read about elsewhere and...

Granville Sewell asks Is ID really rooted in science? Of course he doesn't actually provide any evidence for it, and most of the post is the claim that 'There are, in fact, some fairly persuasive reasons to believe that the development of life was due to natural causes, but when we honestly analyze them, they all reduce to the argument “this doesn’t look like the way a designer would have done things.”' although he doesn't provide any evidence for that either.

Edit: If someone starts to read that post undecided on the answer to that question I really hope they don't see the second reply

It's sad to see professors descend to the level of UD. Next stop: JADville.

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

The popular picture of ID proponents is that we are trying to take a purely religious idea and smuggle it into science, where it does not fit. This picture could not possibly be more backward.

So, you're trying to take a scientific idea and turn it religious?What are you getting at? Would this be the bridge between science and theology that Dembski went on about?

Quote

If it were not for these problems, I don’t believe anyone could possibly look at mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or especially at biology, without seeing design. The scientific evidence for design in Nature is absolutely overwhelming, it leaps out at you from every corner of science.

How the hel1 does physics and chemistry make you see design? Because there are natural laws? Because you can reliably say that if A -> B yesterday then A -> B tomorrow? And if the scientific evidence for design in Nature is so overwhelming, then why am I so underwhelmed? Where is the evidence?

Quote

When we look at human history, it is sometimes very hard to see any evidence of design–the unspeakable sufferings of the human race and its tendency toward evil cause any thinking person to wonder “is this the way a designer would have done things??”

This is just pathetic. Yeah, sure. It all looks designed to me, then...if the Designer were evil. If the Designer were say, oh, I dunno...SATAN!

When we look at human history, it is sometimes very hard to see any evidence of design–the unspeakable sufferings of the human race and its tendency toward evil cause any thinking person to wonder “is this the way a designer would have done things??”

This is just pathetic. Yeah, sure. It all looks designed to me, then...if the Designer were evil. If the Designer were say, oh, I dunno...SATAN!

Wait a sec. Aren't they regularly telling us that everything in the world screams design at them? Now, they are saying that the design is hard to see? Geez, next they'll be saying that life is improbably so a designer had to do it and that life is inevitable because a designer set up the universe for life....oh wait....

But the important thing to notice here is that virtually all of the good arguments against design come from outside science, they are all basically philosophical, or even religious, objections. If it were not for these problems, I don’t believe anyone could possibly look at mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or especially at biology, without seeing design.

How does Sewell look at mathematics and see design? Did he find a secret message embedded in pi?

Well, that's the amazing thing! You can see anything you want in Pi. Pi is believed to be "normal", meaning that its digits are indistinguishable from random. And any finite string will appear somewhere in an infinite random sequence with virtual certainty.

So, the Bible is in Pi. The Book of the Dead is in Pi. The human genome is in Pi. This comment is in Pi. The true answers to all your questions are in Pi. The false answers to all your questions are in Pi. The winning lottery number is in Pi. The losing lottery ticket in your pocket is in Pi. Mona Lisa smoking a cigarette is in Pi.